突破与保守:香港终审法院涉福利权案的审理思路及其新进展

Judicial Activism versus Deference: The Ways and Developments of the HK Court of Final Appeal in Adjudicating Social Welfare Rights Cases

"孔允明案"是香港福利权司法保障历程中的标志性案件,该案充实了《基本法》第36条"福利权"的实体内容并将通常仅运用于涉及公民与政治权利案件的审查标准,即将"比例原则"纳入案件审理的考量之中,创风气之先。然而,本案奉行的谦抑司法哲学,要求法院对立法机关和行政机关公共政策的形成能力以及由此作出的合理判断予以充分尊重。因此,本案对香港现有社会福利制度和政策的冲击必定有限。所谓"司法能动"、司法干涉行政决策、借司法之力推动香港福利社会的形塑更是言过其实。

The “Kong Yunming” case decided by the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal （ “CFA” ） in 2013 has been regarded as a land-mark decision for the protection of social welfare rights in Hong Kong. Not only has the CFA defined precisely the substantive content and scope of the social welfare right protected by article 36 of the Basic Law, it has also innovatively employed the “proportionality analysis”, which used to be applicable in cases involving civil and political rights, to review the merits of the case. Notwithstanding this, since the courts, under the doctrine of “judicial deference”, will generally defer to the public policies or decisions reasonably decided by the Executive or Legislative Council, it is expected that the impact of the “Kong Yunming” case on the social welfare policy will be limited in Hong Kong. Accordingly, it will be an overstatement that the courts, even adopting judicial activist approach, are able to facilitate or shape the formulation of policy on social welfare.